Greater Boston Bigotry (Again): After Advancing Dubious Chile Cover-Up Claim, Host Jim Braude Ignores Beams In Own Eye

Jim Braude

WGBH host and perpetual Catholic Church basher Jim Braude

Jim Braude, the host of evening talk show Greater Boston on local public television station WGBH, rarely misses an opportunity to lambaste the Catholic Church, and he recently even used a decades-old abuse story out of Chile – yes, Chile – to bludgeon Pope Francis and the Catholic Church once again.

On his show, Braude used a high-profile story from the Associated Press to claim that Chilean Bishop Juan Barros "knowingly protected abuser priests."

Yet Braude somehow failed to inform his audience that Pope Francis himself – unlike Braude himself – intensively looked into the cover-up claims against Bishop Barros and concluded that rather than pointing towards guilt, the evidence in the case "points the other way (e.g., innocence)." A Vatican inquiry cleared Barros as well. "I cannot condemn [Bishop Barros] without evidence," Pope Francis has insisted. "I personally am convinced that he's innocent."

In addition, Braude did not let his audience know that there are many questions about the veracity of the claims of cover-up against Bishop Barros. [We highly recommend, "Francis's defense of Barros may not satisfy victims, but it's the right thing to do" by Austen Ivereigh, as well as an informative post at the Catholic League.]

The beams in Braude's own eye

David Norris - Ireland

Ireland's David Norris

One imagines that Braude envisions himself as a voice in defense of childhood sex victims. (Never mind the fact the central accuser in the Chile case claims "abuse" lasting well into his adulthood.) However, Braude is hardly a champion for abuse victims in light of some of the guests he has welcomed on his radio show in the past.

It was only a few years ago that on the radio show Boston Public Radio (on WGBH radio) Braude welcomed a gay rights advocate from Ireland named David Norris.

Braude and his co-host, a well-known dissident "Catholic" by the name of Margery Eagan, were thrilled to have Norris on their show, as Norris was highly instrumental in having Ireland become the first nation in the world to legalize gay marriage by a popular referendum.

Yet Norris is not simply a gay rights advocate. Norris himself has a troubling history which includes advocating the legalization of men having sex with young boys. Indeed, Norris:

  • once wrote a letter on behalf of a former lover accused of molestation, pleading for clemency;
  • co-founded the International Gay Association, which passed two notions, one for the abolition of the age of consent and the other for an "international solidarity campaign" on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange;
  • supported a pro-pedophile organization in the 1980s called the Paedophile Information Exchange; and
  • is on the record as having said that "as a child it had been his greatest desire to be molested."

And the rich irony is that much of Norris' appearance with Braude was spent attacking the Catholic Church for being "complicit" in abuse cases decades ago. You can't make this stuff up, folks.

It should also be noted that Braude and Eagan radio show has also warmly welcomed on their radio show folk singer Peter Yarrow, one third of the popular Peter, Paul, and Mary trio, who served jail time in 1970 after pleading guilty to "taking indecent liberties" with a 14-year-old girl.

And Braude's employer (WGBH) also airs a weekly quiz show that features comedienne Paula Poundstone, who pleaded no contest in 2001 to one count of felony child abuse and a misdemeanor count of "inflicting injury upon a child."

Before Braude once again feels the need to attack the Catholic Church over dubious allegations of cover-up in faraway foreign countries from decades ago, maybe he should look within the walls of his own studio and clean up his own house first.


  1. Dan says:

    The pope gets cornered and makes poor statements in regards to victims of Catholic Child Abuse from pedophiles and perverts of the clergy, so what should we do as catholic defenders of our false church? Let's attack and call anyone bigots who question the cult's culpability in the cover-up and denials of abusers of innocent young children. Let's even attack the victims stating that "the central accuser in the Chile case 'claims' abuse lasting well into his adulthood", as if that would discount his being abused as a minor. Is "the Church" at all aware that their disgusting sexual assaults against young children, can lead innocent victims into a lifestyle of homosexuality.

    And once again we see "the Church", now cornered, not handing the nasty creeps or the investigation over to the proper authorities, but instead sending Bishop Scicluna, because he's their top expert on child abuse (Is that from his own personal experience as an abuser?). OH! And that's going to bring about unbiased and truthful results? How much longer are we going to put up with these lies, cover-ups and deceptions? Maybe you catholics should listen to your own advice and "look within the walls of [your own church] and clean up [your] own house first". From what we've witnessed in this forum, it would take some miracle to see that happen!

  2. "People's" clown says:

    once again Dan, pull your head out into the sunshine! Looks like you only read 1/2 the article, and I have "just cause" to criticize you for it! Chile is being resolved. The one man had as a career goal, as a child, to be molested. He didn't want to be a fireman, or train engineer, but a victim? Come on, Dan! This man has the audacity to go after the church?

    Pax "p"c – "p"c

    • Dan says:

      "Catholic" clown, are you also aware that David Norris had absolutely nothing to do with Chile, nor was he a victim of Fr. Karadima or an accuser of co-conspirator Bishop Juan Barros? Keep grasping for straws, catholics. Slander and falsely accuse anyone who opposes or exposes the sexual child abuse and their enablers, of the hierarchy of your cult.

  3. Dan says:

    Gotta say I love your moniker, but "Catholic" clown would seem more appropriate. "Chile is being resolved"? Are we talking the way "the Church" always "resolves" their priests sexual abuse against the innocent, with cover-ups and denials, and if that's not good enough we'll attack the victim. The article, Bill "Big-mouth Bigot" Donahue and the pope didn't slander victims enough? You find it necessary to add that one who was a minor when first molested had a "career goal" to be a victim of molestation? There were several other victims, did they all have that same "career goal". Must you catholics dig down into the very pits of Hell to dream up your slander and false accusations? With the pile of admitted to rape and sexual molestation by priestly pedophiles and pederasts, you have the "audacity" to continue to blame and berate victims. What is wrong with you creeps?   servant of the Lord of Truth

    • "People's" clown says:

      Glad you like my "moniker", but your "cohort" in crime, Jim Robertson, gave it to me on the PBS thread, but you don't remember, as you have a one track mind. We won't talk about " freeloading" in this thread. Yes, thank heaven for bill Donahue!! Who else has the guts fo fight the slanderers? As far as "career goals" for "victims", perhaps they saw the "easy money" they could get, and decided to cash in. We must keep writing, as then there will be enough material on here for our hero, Publion, to comment on.

      Pax Marty, your "pc" – pc

    • Dan says:

      Just because Jim gave you the "moniker" wouldn't mean that you would have to embrace it. I don't read and pay attention to every comment, especially those directed to others, unless I see a good reason to respond. When it comes to God my Father, I would most defintely prefer a "one track mind", especially over a brainwashed or deceived one. Seeing that publiar, the compulsive liar, manipulator, slanderer and excuser is your "hero", and apparently "hero" to a few other deceived catholics, well that's not surprising coming from a false cult of lying hypocrites. Hail publyin', Hail Mary, Hail Jim Jones, Hail David Koresh and lest we forget, Heil Hitler.

  4. Publion says:

    From ‘Dan’ on the 12th at 1127PM we get a nice example of serial plop-tossing, with the various little piles stitched together into a skein that requires presumption at every step in order to hold together.

    Thus the Pope “gets cornered” (rather than his simply accepting and answering a question put to him) / he “makes poor statements” (only through the filter of the ‘Dan’-verse) / “victims” (a description yet to be validated as accurate) / “pedophiles and perverts of the clergy” (ditto) / “false church” (‘Dan’ sees all “man-made religions” as false, we recall, leaving only ‘Dan’ and the wonderland-crew that burbles sweet affirmations to him from inside his bathroom mirror).

    And while some adult down there has claimed “abuse lasting well into his adulthood” … yet this does not appear to ‘Dan’ as an indication of non-veracity, especially since this accuser might still have been “abused as a minor”. Or the accuser may simply be overplaying his shot at the piñata. Or perhaps ‘Dan’ – who cawn’t think why anybody’s credulity would be stretched to the limit by his own stuff – is simply no longer capable of distinguishing whackery from any possible reality.

  5. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 12th at 1127PM:

    Continuing his dirt-digging truffle hunt, ‘Dan’ then tosses up a huffy bleat about why the police weren’t called. Why didn’t the accuser call them? Or were they called and upon investigation didn’t find any credible basis for the claims? Perhaps the Church sent Bishop Scicluna all the way over there in addition to the civil police investigation.

    And on the basis of all that ‘Dan’ – but of course – puffs up his pinfeathers into declamation-mode and doth bray inquiringly as to “How much longer …?” and so on.

    As for “this forum”: since “this forum” doesn’t appear in ‘Dan’ trusty bathroom mirror, then “from what we’ve witnessed” from ‘

  6. Publion says:

    (This is the conclusion of that final sentence immediately above)

    ‘Dan’, we need not expect any reality-based or even rationality-friendly material from him.

  7. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 418PM:

    In another nice demonstration, ‘Dan’ raises a point the relevance of which he fails to mention; that a) what he sees in his bathroom mirror and b) what is actually present in the real world might not be quite the same thing at all … this either i) doesn’t occur to him or perhaps ii) he doesn’t want it to occur to readers.

    Thus his point about David Norris. Or rather his mere reference to David Norris. Norris wasn’t involved in the Chilean matter. OK … so what? Norris is a noted participant in the highly –questionable gambit wherein one can claim long-ago ‘abuse’ and dine out on the claim for quite some time, without ever having to provide demonstrable evidence.

  8. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 418PM:

    This no-evidence-required element is now bearing the poisonous fruit it planted from the get-go: the short-term gambit of eschewing evidence and relying instead on emotion-grabbing descriptors (of what was not shown to have actually taken place) has proven itself in the long-term to have undermined the credibility of almost any claims at all.

    This, however, is not a problem for types such as ‘Dan’. It simply dumps the game into his apparently natural bailiwick: presumption, mere assertion, vivid description (of undemonstrated presumptions), bleating or braying epitheticals, and – but of course – the ultimate recourse to the authority of ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror séances, touted as being both a) undeniably veracious and b) the very Word and Will of God.

  9. Publion says:

    On then to ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 947AM:

    Here, and once again, ‘Dan’ simply bleats his own preferred narrative, blending it with one of the hoariest and most fundamental Victimist deflection-and-evasion gambits: blaming the (presumed) victim, i.e. the old ‘if you don’t believe the story or if you ask for proof … then you are brutally and insensitively re-victimizing the story-teller all over again’.

    We see it again as ‘Dan’ deploys it against Bill Donahue, but of course the question remains: if one hasn’t proven the legitimacy of the victimization-claim, then how can one ‘slander’ the ‘victim’ … ?

    The ‘Dan’-verse solution, as is the classic Victimist solution, is: easy-peezy – you just presume the victim is telling the truth (otherwise you are re-victimizing the victim’ … and this argument winds up eternally circling the abyssal emptiness of the original undemonstrated claim).

  10. Publion says:

    Continuing with my comment on ‘Dan’s of the 14th at 947AM:

    As for the nicely acute “career goal” point: we see the point’s accuracy and validity in ‘Dan’s stuff, where his dual shtick (first, he is innocent of being an axe-grinding whackjob and instead he is God’s very Mind and Will and second, all man-made religions are doo-doo next to ‘Dan’s bathroom mirror revelations) certainly qualifies as his “career”.  And we have seen various Abuseniks over time here who have also made their ‘abuse’ their career.

    And did not the Stampede precisely make it possible for anyone in search of a “career goal” (and/or a cash payout) to have a whack at the piñata? And as I have said, the Stampede itself has undermined itself by the short-term tactic of evading the need for evidence.

    As for the “admitted” bit, there is hardly a “pile”, and from that “pile” – to repeat a point I have made before on this site – admissions made in prosecution-proffered plea-bargains are always questionable, and not merely in Stampede type cases (such few as there have been) but generally.

    • Dan says:

      Once again, no need to respond to ignorance and stupidity. I recall last month you suggesting that "Christians" should be concerned with promoting the "good in their own lives". Is this what you consider yourself doing, with all your bathroom toilet trash comments? Maybe I'm expecting too much from someone who is a brainwashed catholic and not really a Christian.

  11. malcolm harris says:

    Jim Braude is using his (taxpayer funded) to whip up more negative publicity against the Catholic Church. The pattern is familiar in all countries. The playbook calls for media attackers to ignore all civil rights, and assume guilt from the get go. They blatantly ignore an individual's right to a good reputation. The idea is to create an atmosphere like a witch-hunt. And hope that many more will join in the accusations, Godless people quickly grasp what is happening…. no evidence needed… and the payoff is a truckload of cash. The attacks upon the Chilean bishop  are similar to the attacks upon Australian's  Cardinal Pell. Thank God that Pope Francis has defended the Chilean bishop.

  12. Publion says:

    And – apparently utterly unaware of how it undermines any of his pretensions – ‘Dan’ (the 15th at 944PM) deals with the most recent material by simply waving it all away: he hath “no need to respond to ignorance and stupidity” – doncha see?

    Then, perhaps realizing on some level in his mind that he’d better come up with at least a little more covering than that, he tries to conflate my “bathroom mirror” imagery with (non-existent) “bathroom toilet trash comments” … because anything he doesn’t like or can’t deal with must be “trash” – doncha see? And if it’s all just “trash”, well then it would be silly to waste time on it.

    Oh, and ‘Dan’ has revoked my status as a Christian. He can do that – doncha know? – because his bathroom mirror tells him so.

Speak Your Mind

(email addresses will not be displayed publicly)